If anyone has the creative resources to swim the convergence currents, it's
Michael Backes, both Hollywood screenwriter (Congo, Rising Sun) and Silicon
Valley game developer (co-founder of games start-up Rocket Science). But don't
expect the hackneyed hype about Siliwood from Backes (at left below). As far as
he's concerned, the valley has some growing up to do. The outspoken digital
savant sat down with Ron Martinez, former VP of business and creative
development at Spectrum HoloByte, to ponder questions like "Can a synthetic
character ever get past the Turing test limitation?" and "Where are the
Eisensteins of the interactive medium?"

Martinez: Former Apple evangelist and technology executive Guy Kawasaki
recently wrote a column in Macworld about doing business with Hollywood. Listen
to this: "The biggest barrier to closing a deal with these folks is
understanding their culture and values. I use the terms culture and values
loosely." Here's more: "Be greedy. There are two reasons. First, whomever
you're dealing with will be. And second, Hollywood may have distribution
marketing, but you have technology. Let's face it. Their idea of user interface
is VCR+." As a representative of the Hollywood crossover community, what do you
think of this?

Backes:

The same thing can be said about a lot of people in Mountain
View, Cupertino, or Sunnyvale. You meet these marketing bozos and these
32-year-old Presidents of All Media.

Guy's a really smart guy, but he doesn't have a clue about Hollywood. Just like
Hollywood doesn't have a clue about Silicon Valley. They speak two different
languages, and there are few translators. Sometimes I think it's easier to deal
with a priest on the Pentecost Islands than with some of these people who want
to shuttle back and forth between Hollywood and Silicon Valley. They're
clueless. They stare at each other across the table, and they don't even know
what to trade. At least Peter Minuit, the first director of New Netherlands,
could show some trinkets and get Manhattan.

Well, there's no common vocabulary. From the fundamental imagining of the
entertainment software product - at the point of conception - there are
radically different mental maps. Is there really a convergence between
Hollywood and Silicon Valley? Or is that bogus? Is there instead merely cross
appropriation, as opposed to convergence?

As long as hardware weenies continue to think they have any control over the
content business, there'll be people like us here ready to exploit them at
every opportunity.

But isn't there something they know that you don't? About the way the
software works, or what constitutes a good game, or what constitutes
interactive entertainment?

The bottom line is they have no clue about user interface. I don't think
there's any user interface genius in Silicon Valley. If there were, you'd see
it in the software. OK? And you don't. They're still stealing ideas out of
mid-1970 Xerox PARC. Show me some spectacular interface breakthrough that's
been made in the '80s or '90s by anybody.

It's a new industry and a growing industry, and a lot of people have been
spectacularly successful and made a lot of money in this industry, so they
think they bring something spectacular to the table. I think, as a rule, they
don't. Computers are still way too hard to use, way too complex, and videogame
machines don't have any front end to 'em.

But what about the numbers? Computer games, or videogames, out-gross the
Hollywood box office.

Except look at all the ancillary stuff. The bottom line is that Jurassic Park
toys sold a billion bucks worth. The movie business creates content that bleeds
all over the place. We create industries. Now, I think movies can cross over to
games, provided that the environment of the movie is compelling enough to make
an interesting environment for a game. However, because most games don't have
any characters worth a damn, you got a real tough time bringing any kind of
dramatic interaction over from the games, because - guess what?